We all know about Apple's look-and-feel lawsuit against Microsoft over Windows 2.0, but this wasn't the only look-and-feel lawsuit Apple filed during those years. Digital Research, Inc., the company behind GEM, also found itself on the pointy end of Apple's needle. Unlike the lawsuit against Microsoft, though, Apple managed to 'win' the one against DRI.

I have to agree; it's not about disputing facts. I'm sure Apple ( as well as many other companies) has used shady legal tactics to disrupt or eliminate competition. But the obvious slant that this site has taken is a little too much for me. I used to enjoy reading about operating systems and other related stories, but when nearly every other story is about Apple and how evil they are, I guess it's time to go. I'm not an Apple fan, but this is too much.

OSNews is, and always will be, going with a flow - a flow determined by the interests of the person doing 99.9% of the news. Back when Eugenia did her thing, she had a flow too. A few months with a focus on this, then a few months a focus on that. The same applies to me. Right now, my focus is on the fact that I'm seeing history being rewritten before my very eyes, and I want to do something to counter that. That's my prerogative as the person doing 99.9% of the work here.

I will not hide or ignore facts that are inconvenient to you. I will not go out of my way to treat Apple fans any differently from any other fans. Much like how Windows 8 and Metro get their fair share of criticism from me, or Android's severe upgrade mess, I will not tone those down because I might step on a few toes. We're all adults here.

If I'm ostensibly lying or presenting false information - point it out and we all learn. If you feel my opinion is wrong, argue your case - much like I have to do every day here in the comments sections. You don't see me run away from that either. And, as always, feel free to write an article in case you want more prominence than a comment can give you. We point this possibility out time and time again, but somehow, people like you never take us up on it.

That you never take me up on the article offer, and the fact that you're failing to come up with arguments and instead just shout BIAS! makes it very clear to me I argued my case pretty damn well with this article.

Thom, please reveal for us how many PARC engineers ended up going to work at Apple following the famous visits by Apple to Xerox PARC. I seem to recall that there definitely was cross-pollination at the time.

I'm not a lawyer and don't care me the patent war from companies.
I like C, ASM, OS programming, PICs, DIY, computers... and lately OSNews only is focused in not technical news (and always from one side)

This is my opinion and I say this from the affection I have to the OSNews site. Sorry if this is a criticism comment. But i think is better say this.

I loved my Atari ST (hey, I could afford it, unlike a Mac!), but there's little doubt that it was largely a knock-off of the Mac interface. AmigaOS was actually very different, which just may have accounted for why they weren't targeted by Apple. True multitasking, different look, odd things like splitting the screen into vertical slices with different resolutions, etc. - not really a Mac.

I liked GEM, and certainly the 'update' that split the browser into 2 fixed windows and gimped other parts pretty much insured that its days (PC) were numbered. But - especially considering that the only thing that saved Microsoft was the fine print of the licensing agreements they had - I'm not sure that Apple was wrong in trying to defend their IP. Seems like legally they had a leg to stand on (right or wrong!), and as a company that pretty much defines some of the actions they took.

Anyways, the anti-Apple slant is certainly always implied if not always stated. Indignant protests over verdicts against companies that are blatantly ripping off IP (functionally and/or window dressing and certainly look of devices) are amusing, if not really on target. I was happy to see a jury agreed that flagrant and willful copying of protected designs isn't a legitimate business approach.